Double Jeopardy?

[David Steele]

In reading about the Terry Nichols retrial by OK state,
I was wondering if there is much precedent for this kind of thing.

This process sidesteps the issue of double jeopardy
technically but it seems wrong to me.

D.

[jdl22]

Why are they doing it?

Is it simply because he didn't get the death penalty in the federal case?

[HDPM]

Plenty of precedent. Separate sovereigns idea. It doesn't run afoul of the DJ clause. Usually you see it in civil rights type cases. I think this "exception" to double jeopardy can be abused. I think the only reason the state is prosecuting here is because Nichols avoided the death penalty. Putting on this kind of case to get the death penalty instead of life without parole in a maximum security prison is ridiculous IMO. A waste of time and money to get a useless extra penalty. Basically you are trying to kill a guy because some people will get a little psychological comfort or thrill or whatever. So it is all stupid, but it is perfectly legal.

[Sloats]

You know, if this government actual partook in conspiracies, you'd think they would drop a shank and a couple pack of cigarettes.

[bingledork]

Terry Nichols was tried and convicted of killing 8 federal employees a few years ago.

This latest trial was for the 161 other people he helped kill.

No double jeopardy here.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
In reading about the Terry Nichols retrial by OK state,
I was wondering if there is much precedent for this kind of thing.

This process sidesteps the issue of double jeopardy
technically but it seems wrong to me.

D.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is similar to Bill Clinton's thinking: "Osama hasn't technically violated any laws, I guess we just have to let him go."

[elwoodblues]

As others have mentioned, it happens all the time (think Rodney King cops). I might be mistaken, but I think sometimes with serial killers a state will charge them with most, but not all, of their killings so that if they get off they can bring up charges on the remaining ones.